Market Acceptance: Key Considerations for Health Tech

As startups transition from initial proof-of-concept technology to a commercially viable product, they will have to face and navigate the “Death Valley” curve. This critical phase, marked by a high risk of failure, is especially challenging for health technology companies, who have to maneuver the complexities of regulatory compliance, market expectations, and learn how to overcome bias connected to novel technologies. 

Clinical co-founders, who typically excel at proving the efficacy of a technology, often struggle to turn their innovation into a widely adopted solution. Moreover, the gap between technology validation stage and adoption is often stark. Proven technology in healthtech merely ensures that the system functions as intended, but successful products require much more. This two-part article examines key challenges healthcare technology companies must address to survive the “Death Valley” curve and increase their chances for success when moving from technology development to market acceptance. 

Understanding healthcare innovation: Iterative versus novel

The distinction between iterative and novel technology plays a huge role in the way a product reaches the market. With iterative products — those that improve on existing solutions — you do not need a perfect product to go to market. You can release a nearly final version of what you want it to be since people will still notice how it improves on what is already available, even if it is not yet fully optimized.

However, when you are working on something that has not been done before, the situation changes. Two major issues come into play: regulatory barriers and market coverage. Even if a product is FDA-approved for safety and effectiveness, it might not be covered by insurance, making it tough to push into the marketplace. Besides, the importance of building a solid Intellectual Property (IP) position becomes crucial. 

Startup founders need to align their business goals with IP strategy and understand all intricacies of the IP landscape in healthtech. By understanding the different types of IP, and filing patents strategically, startups not only safeguard their innovations, but also secure competitive advantage, and build a foundation to attract investors and potential partnerships. Unlike iterative products, where there is a pull from the market, with novel products, you have to push — and that takes much more time, money and effort.

Crafting a clear value proposition

It is essential to recognize that the value propositions for different healthcare stakeholders may vary significantly. For example, while C-level executives may prioritize analytical outcomes, such as making a procedure 5% faster, clinicians often seek clarity on what that metric actually means in practical terms. This divergence dictates that product teams separate and tailor value propositions for different audiences. For example, the value proposition for acute care and monitoring solutions will focus on managing a patient’s health rather than traditional reimbursement codes. On the other hand, for hospital administrators the emphasis will be on key metrics that reflect reduction of care escalations and minimization of hospital readmissions. And practitioners in procedural settings may require clear evidence that a product simplifies and integrates into their workflows without adding complexity.

Differentiating products from features

One key issue many clinical founders face is distinguishing between a product and a feature. Founders often develop a feature to address a specific clinical problem they have encountered, with the expectation that it would be widely adopted. However, a feature may be everything a startup has to get started, it often is not enough to constitute a full product that integrates into a clinical workflow.

It is essential to distinguish between product purpose and the features that enhance it. The product, at its core, is what addresses the main problem: for instance, enabling clinicians to view and understand a patient’s health remotely. That is the value proposition, the fundamental purpose of the product. Features add depth to the product and make it more intuitive, easier to use, which in turn helps retain users. But it is crucial to remember that healthcare professionals are not just looking for new features; they need complete solutions that integrate seamlessly into their workflow. A feature, even if it improves the workflow, may go unused if it complicates adoption or lacks the full functionality that would drive real impact.

Navigating the complexity of healthcare use cases

When you introduce something new, the market does not just want to know that it works; they want to know exactly how to use it. One of the most significant aspects here is usability, which should be measured early on. Formative and summative usability testing, together with post-test and post-task methods, such as the SUS (System Usability Scale) questionnary, the SEQ (Single Ease Question) and the NASA-TLX (Task Load Index) assist in determining whether users not only understand the product but are also eager to continue using it. It becomes even more important when we consider the diversity of roles in healthcare.

Healthcare IT platforms are fundamentally more complex than many other types of software. Unlike a ride-hailing app like Uber, where the use case is fairly simple — press a button, get a car — healthcare involves layers of users: patients, providers, payers, and administrators, each with different roles and needs. For instance, in treating a complex condition like diabetic ketoacidosis, a patient interacts with a broad range of professionals: doctors, nurses, case managers, nutritionists, and hospital administrators. Each professional touches the data and views it through their unique lens, which complicates the user experience for any given platform.

And it is not just that these multiple roles exist — it is that each role requires different functionality. In many cases, technologists struggle to understand the mental and emotional strain on healthcare professionals who deal with life-or-death situations daily. Clinicians are unlikely to adopt even the best technology if it adds complexity to their already demanding tasks. So even if your product is highly effective as a standalone solution, if it does not work seamlessly with the broader systems clinicians use — like Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems such as Epic — it is unlikely to be adopted. As one expert shared, “If I have to pull a physician out of Epic to use my product, I’ve failed.” Founders often skip this essential step of validating whether their solution works within the broader context of clinical operations. Instead of focusing solely on solving a clinical problem, they must ensure that the product fits smoothly into existing clinical workflows and healthcare protocols.

In healthtech, the journey to market acceptance looks very different for iterative and novel innovations. However, one principle holds true for everyone in the field: you need to balance a clear vision with the flexibility to adapt. Refining your product to meet end user needs is a natural part of the process, but it is just as important to stay focused on solving the core problem while aligning with clinical priorities and workflows. In Part 2 of the article, we will continue to explore critical factors that affect market acceptance, including complex regulatory landscape, reimbursement barriers and the role of UX design in risk mitigation.

Picture: akindo, Getty Images

This post appears through the MedCity Influencers program. Anyone can publish their perspective on business and innovation in healthcare on MedCity News through MedCity Influencers. Click here to find out how.